Ann Arbor Criminal Defense Blog

Michigan Court Discusses Statute of Limitations for Seeking Habeas Relief

Published on: September 16, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

DUI defendants have many rights that extend from the moment an investigation begins till well after they are convicted. For example, if a person convicted of a DUI crime believes the sentence imposed for the offense is improper, they may raise habeas claims, essentially asking the court to determine if the sentence is unlawful. Such claims must be pursued in a timely manner; however, otherwise, they may be dismissed as untimely. The statutory limitations for seeking habeas relief were the topic of a recent Michigan opinion issued in a case in which the defendant appealed a lengthy sentence imposed for a drunk driving crime. If you are accused of driving while intoxicated, it is smart to speak to a Michigan DUI defense attorney to assess what penalties you may face if convicted.

Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including a third offense DUI, arising out of a traffic stop. He pled no contest, after which he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms. The longest sentence was for six to twenty years for his DUI conviction. He subsequently filed a direct appeal in which he raised habeas claims. He challenged the legality of his sentence on three grounds. Specifically, he argued it was unreasonable and disproportionately harsh in comparison to the severity of his offenses, he was denied a hearing regarding his prior conviction record, and his sentence arose out of erroneous scoring of the offense variables.

Statute of Limitations for Seeking Habeas Relief

If a defendant files a habeas petition, the court must first examine it to determine if it demonstrates, on its face, that they are not entitled to relief. If so, the court should dismiss the petition. A preliminary assessment in evaluating the petition is whether the defendant filed it within the one-year statute of limitations. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Special Conditions of Supervised Release

Published on: September 6, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

The federal courts of the United States will often sentence people convicted of serious crimes to imprisonment followed by supervised release. The courts are permitted to impose special conditions to the terms of such release as well, as long as the conditions fall within certain parameters. Recently, a Michigan court issued an opinion explaining what discretion the courts may exercise with regards to imposing special conditions in a case in which the defendant objected to the imposition of sex offense conditions after he was convicted for hiring a hitman. If you are charged with a crime, it is in your best interest to confer with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your possible defenses.

The Defendant’s Conviction

It is reported that the defendant’s children were removed from his custody by a social worker after they complained of sexual abuse. The defendant then reached out to a friend asking for a favor, by which he meant he wanted to hire a hitman to murder the social worker. He had numerous calls with his friend and then met the purported hitman in person. The hitman, however, turned out to be an undercover police officer, and the friend was an informant.

It is alleged that the government charged the defendant with attempting to hire someone to commit murder in violation of federal law. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months, followed by supervised release. Additionally, the court-mandated that he participate in sex-offense treatment and assessment as special conditions of his release. He appealed, arguing that the special conditions of his release were not reasonably related to his offense. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Explains Factors Weighed in a Request for Compassionate Release

Published on: August 22, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Drug crimes typically carry significant penalties, and people convicted of such offenses may be sentenced to decades in prison. In some instances, though, a person serving a significant sentence for a drug crime may be able to argue for compassionate release. Demonstrating that such relief is warranted can be difficult, however, as demonstrated in a recent Michigan case. If you are charged with a drug crime, it is smart to speak to a Michigan drug crime defense attorney regarding your options for protecting your interests.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that in 2013, the defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine. He was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, which was the mandatory minimum sentence. When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the defendant’s prison, he moved for compassionate release. In support of his motion, he argued that his pre-existing health conditions and the fact that the First Step Act reduced the minimum sentence for similar crimes constituted compelling and extraordinary reasons that warranted an early release. He also noted that he had not garnered any infractions in prison and had completed his education. The district court nonetheless denied his motion. He then appealed.

Factors Weighed in Evaluating a Request for Compassionate Release

The appellate court found the district court’s analysis of the federal sentencing factors to be sufficient to affirm its ruling. The appellate court noted that the district court weighed the relevant sentencing factors, including the defendant’s criminal history and the characteristics of his crime, and found that they weighed heavily against granting relief. Specifically, it noted he frequently committed crimes while on supervision or parole and had an extensive criminal past. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Claims of Self-Defense in Michigan Assault Cases

Published on: August 16, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In Michigan, it is generally unlawful for someone to attack or threaten to harm another individual. In some instances, however, the use of force may be justified. For example, if people accused of assault crimes can demonstrate that their actions were necessary for their own protection or the protection of others, they may be deemed not guilty. Recently, a Michigan court discussed what evidence is necessary to establish acts were taken in self-defense in a case in which the defendant appealed his assault and weapons convictions. If you are accused of unlawfully causing another person bodily harm, it is advisable to confer with a skillful Michigan criminal defense attorney to assess what arguments you may be able to set forth in your defense.

The Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the victim visited the restaurant where the defendant worked as a manager and attempted to order food but did not have any money. As such, the defendant refused to take his order. The victim and the defendant began arguing, and the defendant obtained a gun from the back office and pointed it at the victim. The victim then left the restaurant and picked up a brick which he admitted he was going to throw through the front window of the establishment.

Allegedly, the defendant went outside to confront the victim and fired shots in his direction, one of which struck the victim in the leg. The victim left and encountered police officers a few blocks away. The officers proceeded to arrest the defendant, who was charged with numerous counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms. A jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and he appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to rebut his claim of self-defense. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Deviations from Sentencing Guidelines

Published on: August 6, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In Michigan, there are sentencing guidelines that direct the courts as to the appropriate penalties for criminal convictions. While generally, the courts sentence offenders within the statutory parameters, they have the discretion to deviate from them in some instances. Their liberties are not boundless, though, and if they depart from the guidelines, their decisions must be reasonable. Recently, a Michigan court discussed the reasonableness standard for evaluating sentences that depart from the applicable guidelines range in a case in which the defendant appealed her sentence for using false pretenses to obtain over $3 million in fees. If you are charged with a theft crime, it is smart to speak with a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney to discuss your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

The History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was in charge of handling billing for her husband’s trucking company. In 2011, she began submitting false invoices to a factoring company for work that was never performed. The factoring company paid in excess of $3.3 million for fake invoices from 2011 to 2018. After the factoring company uncovered the scheme, the police arrested the defendant and charged her with multiple counts of using false pretenses to obtain money. She pleaded guilty and agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $3.3 million. The court sentenced her to 9 to 20 years imprisonment, which was an upward departure from the top end of the minimum sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in upwardly departing from the guidelines range.

Evaluating the Reasonableness of a Sentence

Michigan appellate courts review sentences that deviate from the applicable guidelines range under a reasonableness standard. The Michigan Supreme Court has stated that the proper question when assessing a sentence for reasonableness is whether the trial court violated the principle of proportionality in imposing the sentence and therefore committed an abuse of discretion. The principle of proportionality dictates that a sentence imposed by a court must be proportionate to the severity of the circumstances surrounding the crime and the offender. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses Impeaching a Witness in a Criminal Trial

Published on: July 27, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In Michigan, assault crimes range from misdemeanors to felonies, and the severity of a charge depends on numerous factors. For example, a person that brandishes a weapon during an attack may be accused of a felonious assault. In many instances, the circumstances surrounding an altercation are disputed, and the State will use witness testimony to establish guilt. As such, if a defendant can demonstrate a witness lacks credibility, the jury may be less inclined to believe the person. Recently, a Michigan court discussed the grounds for impeaching a witness in a criminal case in a matter in which a defendant appealed her felonious assault conviction. If you are charged with assault, it is in your best interest to meet with a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine your options.

The Subject Assault

It is reported that the defendant, her niece, and her niece’s boyfriend went to the movies together and then returned to the defendant’s home. Their accounts of what transpired after they entered the defendant’s house differed, however. Specifically, the niece and her boyfriend stated the defendant began paranoid and accused them of stealing things, and while waving a knife around, the defendant cut her niece’s hand.

Allegedly, the defendant advised that her niece and her niece’s boyfriend stole multiple items, and she picked up the knife to scare them into giving them back when she cut her niece. She was charged with felonious assault. Her niece and her niece’s boyfriend gave their accounts of what occurred at trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. She appealed, arguing in part that her counsel was ineffective. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Bars the Use of Other Acts Evidence in a Criminal Case

Published on: July 16, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In attempting to establish a defendant’s guilt, the State will frequently try to introduce evidence of a scheme or motive. There are restrictions as to what is admissible, however. For example, in most instances, the State cannot introduce evidence of other crimes to show a defendant’s guilt. This was demonstrated in a recent Michigan case in which the court ruled that evidence of other crimes was inadmissible in a case in which the defendant is charged with first-degree murder. If you are charged with murder or any other violent crime, it is in your best interest to speak with an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney about your rights.

The History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant’s co-worker, who per eyewitness reports was last seen with the defendant, was missing. The police began investigating her disappearance and questioned the defendant. He advised them that he was working when she disappeared, even though he was not. Thus, the police became suspicious of the defendant and obtained a warrant to search his apartment. As part of the search, they performed a DNA analysis that indicated the presence of the skin cells on the defendant’s rug.

Allegedly, the State charged the defendant with the first-degree murder of the co-worker solely due to the DNA evidence. Before the trial, the prosecution filed a motion in limine asking the court to permit the introduction of evidence that the defendant had a prior conviction for strangling and attempting to rape another woman. The defense attorney argued such information was inadmissible other acts evidence, which would be used to unjustly indicate the defendant’s propensity to commit crimes. The trial court found in favor of the defendant, and the State appealed. Continue Reading ›

Court Explains Assessing the Validity of Plea Waivers Under Michigan Law

Published on: July 7, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In many criminal cases, it makes sense for the defendant to enter into a plea agreement in exchange for a reduced sentence or lesser charges. Any plea agreement must be entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and if it is not, a defendant may have grounds to file an appeal. The basis for challenging a plea agreement was the topic of a recent Michigan opinion that was issued in a case in which the defendant pleaded guilty to theft and fraud. If you are accused of fraud or any other crime, it is smart to speak to an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney regarding your rights.

The Defendant’s Agreement

It is reported that the defendant was charged with theft of government funds, student loan fraud, and numerous other crimes. She entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement she made with the prosecution. She then appealed the judgment in her case, averring that she had a right to appeal the timing of her sentence and the manner in which it was to be served. The government moved to dismiss her appeal, arguing that she expressly waived her right to file an appeal. After reviewing the agreement, the court ruled in favor of the government and dismissed her appeal.

Assessing the Validity of Plea Waivers Under Michigan Law

The court explained that criminal defendants might waive their right to an appeal as part of their plea agreements, but any such waiver must be voluntary and knowing. In the subject case, the defendant did not argue that her waiver was not voluntary or knowing but instead asserted that the waiver did not include challenges to the timing of her sentence or the manner in which it was to be served. Continue Reading ›

Michigan Court Discusses a Criminal Defendant’s Right to Testify at Trial

Published on: June 26, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

Home invasion is a serious charge that can result in a lengthy jail sentence. Establishing guilt in a home invasion case requires the prosecution to show that the defendant entered another person’s home without permission. Thus, if the defendant can establish that he or she had consent prior to entering, the jury should issue a verdict of not guilty. In many instances, the only evidence of the defendant’s permission is his or her own account of events. Recently, a Michigan court discussed a defendant’s right to testify in a home invasion case, in a matter in which the defendant appealed his conviction. If you are accused of a home invasion or other criminal offenses, it is smart to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney about your options.

The Alleged Invasion

Allegedly, the defendant shared custody of his minor child with the victim. During a custody exchange, he confronted the victim about his belief that she was dating another man. She went back into her house, and he pursued her, yelling and asking for her phone. She had hidden her phone in her pants on other occasions, and therefore the defendant pulled down her pants to look for it. When he could not find the phone, he digitally penetrated her.

It is reported the defendant was charged with home invasion and criminal sexual conduct. During the trial, the victim testified that the defendant did not have permission to enter her home on the night of the incident. The jury convicted the defendant and he appealed, arguing in part that he was denied the right to testify for his defense. Continue Reading ›

Court Discusses Evidence of Guilt in a Michigan Assault Case

Published on: June 16, 2021 | ArborYpsi Law

In many assault cases, the prosecution relies on testimony from the victim and any witnesses to the incident to establish the defendants’ guilt. Thus, if they testify that the defendant was not the person who committed the alleged offense, it may be challenging for the prosecution to prove its case. In matters in which witnesses recant earlier statements in which they indicated the defendant’s guilt, however, they may be found to lack credibility, and the defendant may be convicted despite their favorable testimony. This was shown in a recent Michigan ruling in which the court denied the defendant’s motion for new trial after his assault conviction. If you are accused of assault or any other crime, it is advisable to meet with a Michigan criminal defense lawyer to discuss your potential defenses.

The Assault and Subsequent Trial

It is reported that the defendant and the victim were involved in a verbal altercation, after which the victim got into a vehicle and began to drive away. The defendant then began to shoot at the vehicle. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and other crimes. At his trial, the victim and his mother, who was at the scene of the incident, both testified that they did not know who shot at the vehicle.

Allegedly, the prosecution then presented evidence of earlier statements made by the victim and his mother in which they identified the defendant as the shooter, including a letter from the mother to the police. The defendant was ultimately convicted as charged. He then moved for a new trial, arguing in part that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion, and he appealed. Continue Reading ›